No, people like you and I want defense from murderers and rapists. You do not need to rob people, create a coercive monopoly on defense, or operate on death threats (pay us or go to a cage or get shot) to defend people from murders, thieves, and other aggressive actors. It makes no sense especially then the organization itself is structured to﻿ do that.

taxes is not thievery. taxes are an investment. thats all. they're﻿ a necesary investment that keeps your societies Insured against certain predictable threats. its like the difference between having a bridge and NOT having a bridge.

well the thing is is that once you change peoples minds... then what? If you﻿ don't make it "Law" then it doesn't matter what the majority knows or doesn't they're gonna be confronted by a hostile private sector and government. so you have to make it law and then you have to enforce it. and back your enforcement with the threat of lost liberty. you have to make it clear.

I was in a punk band where I climbed out of an 8 foot tall smoking vagina in a dress on stage. our singer wore a diaper and an eye patch. we travelled the country doing China White Heroin and stealing food and sleeping on couches.. the dwarves told us that we were their﻿ favorite band. do you understand? thats anarchy.

we sang ballads about child molestation and got in fist fights and left FOOD BOMBS where if the bar didn't pay us right we'd stash milk jugs of waste under their stage. "anarchy"

That is not political anarchism or what any major anarchist political thinker has written about. I don't care about labels anyway but the conepts. Please engage in the﻿ concepts, not labels and semantics.

in the KKK's eyes they were acting out of self defense from the freedoms they'd lost to washington..

why are you so afraid of the Majority of Americans making their own laws?

wouldn't yo prefer to live in a country where everyone has a say rather then just living in either A) an elitist piece of shit government like we have now or B) a nation of roaming gangs where nothing is orderly and everything is dependent upon the﻿ judgement calls of local war lords? these fantasies of yours arent healthy

dude you're worse then Bill CLinton when it comes to acting like you dont know things that we both know that you do!

Switserland most certainly did form naturally and stayed afloat by the peoples willingness to go along with their forms of traditions and values. don't try and act like there's no example of what I'm﻿ talking about. YOU'vE GOT SOMALIA I've GOT SWITZERLAND

I don't think the Jews or Federal Reserve control the world so I don't know why you brought that up. Switzerland do not form on a consent basis. ﻿ Somalia is a decentralized statism, not an anarchism though its living standards improved after the central government fell but it is hardly what I advocate.

I brought up Ron Paul for the same reason that you brought up Mike Gravel. the anarchists are from ron pauls left over shit campaign.

it went 9/11 loose change - alex jones -"mr. free markets" ron paul - campaigns over... anarchism. thats how its gone, so the question is. where does this school of fish have left to go? what ideas have they﻿ not devoured yet as a young angry mob out to conquer where ever they roam? hopefully it'll be democracy. because then they'll actually change shit

the KKK was a voluntary militia that hung﻿ people that they deemed deserved it. YES in fucking DEED the fucking KKK were a bunch of make it up as you go along fuck the laws and fuck washington DC ANARCHISTS

thats the company you keep. the KKK and you. snuggled up tightly. with ron paul reading you fantastic tales about the federal reserve and jewish alumni's that control you're lives.

you act like anarchism is some NEW fucking development when anarchism has been around since the very beginning of this state.

people that cant work, artists, degenerate, outcasts. they all turn to anarchism. because anarchism at its core is individualism. it teaches you that "why should you care what your society thinks or does because they're all stupid". and I agree except for when IF﻿ YOU CAN ACTUALLY CHANGE THE LAW that you fucking SHOULD. because its COMMON FUCKING SENSE

I am all for changing our current society. I don't know if I completely agree with your quote, and it is not the "definition﻿ of anarchism" (Greek for no rulers) but I am in agreement that it can and should be changed. The difference is I want a system based on consent and mutual aid (that can include majoritiarian democracy over individuals who consent to the system), not institutionalized aggressive violence. Either way it requires changing minds.

well how are you goin to change it without democracy? huh genius? answer me that? how you gonna﻿ get ANYTHING to change unless the majority of people are willing to go a along with it? otherwise you're pissing in the wind.

institutionalized aggresion AGAINST RAPISTS AND MURDERS

you really like to leave that part out.

Yea its a crying shame that we have people that are trained to beat the shit out of rapists and murderers. yea I feel terrible for them murderers and rapists . they got it bad.

No the murders and rapists commited aggression. I am not saying they should be freed. The murders and rapitists commited aggression against others, acting﻿ against them after that is defense, not aggression. I think you need to look up the common definition of aggression.

You are conflating your idea of democracy with changing people's minds and a consent based system for non aggressive﻿ people. If that is your new definition of democracy then I agree with democracy. If it still includes cocercion against non aggressive people then no.

There are programs within the state that are aggressive in nature such as corporate welfare, protection of land monopolies, etc. That is not all current law is. Additionally barring others services from coming about to deal with murder and rape is aggression itself. You do not need taxes (involuntary payments) to fund protection services. We have also been over this a﻿ few dozen times.

barring others services from dealing with rapists and murders. dude you have flown off the fucking deep﻿ end you know this?

so rape and murder are a profit margin now? companies should be able to compete based on results and merit pay for how well they privately deal with rapists and murderers. yea we tried that once it was called the KKK!

No that is not what the KKK did. It committed﻿ aggression. They can be non profit or for profit as long as they do not commit aggression and only engage in defending people from or responding to aggression. Majority, involuntary law making over what is tied to people's labor is not the same as just "convincing people". It is aggression.

Well by state I don't mean size as much as I mean thisan aggressive violent monopoly or near monopoly of certain services over land not tied to labor or over individuals who have not consented which, by the general public conception, does so in﻿ a manner not considered to be legitimate for other groups of humans or individuals to engage in.

That is dependent on how you define taxation, if you mean involuntary payments then no. No society has developed into a statism on a voluntary, consensual basis. It has either formed through conquest,﻿ minority or majority forced revolution, or other forms of aggression that made it legitimate for only a certain number of people to engage in while others could not.

By convincing people not to support the initiation of force against pot users. It depends by what you mean by the word democracy. From you idea of it you support it being﻿ coercive so not by your definition or idea of it.

convincing people is coercive. we should let people voluntarily decide whether they should be allowed to force someone... jesus christ you fuckers spin a tangled web. circles and circles anc circles﻿ just never ending. but never actually saying or Doing ANYTHING.

It depends what you mean by disrespecting the law. I do "do things my own way" if you will. The corporate-state set up is not voluntary under any conception of Lockean, communal, or another set of property rights. To suggest we have a free society is laughable will so much ruling over indiviuals and what is tied to their labor.﻿

the laws as they stand today are all written for of and by the rich correct? and thats why they're shitty laws right?

so you take the law making ability out of the hands of the elites and you give it to the ordinary man whos looking out for his ordniary interests. WA fucking LAH! problem fucking solved. YOU KNOW THIS SHIT ALREADY! how in the﻿ fuck did you DIGRESS? you de-evolved!? you went BACK WARDS in your capacity to REASON... like a paul tard voting for McCain.

Because both a rich elite dictating orders to non aggressive people or a majority dictating laws to non aggressive people is a violation of my opposition to aggression. In anarchism, or whatever you wish to call it, the common law would be aggression. Any law requiring a positive obligation from ones labor would need to be consented too. As long as positive obligation is consented too then I have no problem with it. ﻿ Using political imperialism I do have a problem with.

All I really see you doing is trying to pass off democracy as anarchy. If there are no rulers by your definition of anarchy, then no one man can make law, and if you accept the majority decision﻿ in making law then that is a democracy.

The real question here should be, why are you trying to sell off democracy as if it were Anarchy?

My god oldhacks see this is why I don't know if you are trolling or have a terrible memory. We have been over this about a dozen times as well. Murder, rape, and other aggressive crimes would be illegal de facto under anarchism because they are aggressive actions against people and what is tied to their﻿ labor without consent. The common law if you will would be non aggression. Laws that require positive obligations would have to be consented too.

my god Nothing dude. I'm TIRE TIRE TIRE of this crap. everyone needs to stop fucking talking about how great it "could be" like punkrockoutlaw76 where every time he starts a sentence it's "Imagine a world where...blah blah"

I'm not IMagining anything. I'm Seeing Results! 2 dollar wine by LAW. marijuana made legal by LAW. soon to have the first bullet train in the fucking country BY LAW. WAKE THE FUCK up Florida college boy. You don't﻿ know SHIT!

The problem is hacks, is that you think you need a state to makes these things legal. Any system, coerced or not requires ideological support. In order to get pot legal (and excusing you simplistic view of the wine case) you have to convince people which has been going on. I and he are not against that, but you don't need a state﻿ to do that.

I dont think I need a state. open the borders. who the hell cares. as long as they're willing﻿ to sign up so we know who they are when they cross over. I have no problem with having a relaxed and simple immigration policy so wtf r u talking about?

what "state" America? sure. thats where I'm from. it sits in the middle of Canada and Mexico. Canada and Mexico aren't dropping their borders. so even if we drop ours the borders will still stand due to their statehood. RE- A - Li - TY. come look

Hacks you are one to say someone is brainwashed. I was a supporter of Mike Gravel's ideas at one time and to an extent I still am. I probably put more videos out on Gravel than any other user﻿ besides Gravel himself. Your problem is that you are ignorant of the ideas of anarchism and for whatever reason you refuse to understand them or be reasoned. You have hardly progressed in your criticisms of anarchism that you started months ago unlike other people who have more learned critiques.

Well yes you have moved into worse ideas than Gravel had, but NI4D was his main goal. I should have been more specific. All of that is depending on what you mean by﻿ doing something anarchist. Luckily there are still actions that are voluntary and cooperative that you can engage without state, religious, and corporate coercion. Spreading ideas and learning yourself is the most important action I can see one doing.

Now, organizing is something that I haven't been able to do because there are not a lot of anarchists or (whatever term you wish to use) in my area but the numbers are growing. It went around zero from 2 years app. a few dozen on campus alone. This is exactly what I am referring to when I say you are still in a﻿ state of ignorance. We have been over this probably a dozen times. Anarchism does not ban laws or having a say.

that has, is and forever will be the true nature of anarchism. voluntaryism is fucking cop out. thats what we have NOW. right NOW you can volunteer to donate to causes. and your boss and Volunteer how much he pays and how much he owns. when are you fuckers gonna stop talking and start ACTING. thats what﻿ i wanna know

Anarchism is Greek for no rulers, not no rules or regulations depending on what you mean by the term. Means of exchanges would garner their value by how well they are managed which would lead﻿ people to adopt them. You do need acceptance, but you don't need coercion to achieve that. The currency would gain its legitimacy through how it is maintained just as any other service.

Again you need to actually look into political anarchism more. Still it is getting away from what﻿ we were discussing earlier. Trashing collecting would exist under an anarchism because people would demand trash pickup and there will be people willing to provide that service.

The city pays people to pick up trash, it is not voluntary. They pay them a decent wage becuase they no its a crap job. They pay them with fiat money that has a value in this society. With your logic people would accept buttons as payment and be happy about it, which is totally unrealistic.

Paychecks wont exist under anarchism, because money wont exist or have value. It sounds like to me your﻿ trying to take a word "anarchism" and manuplate the meaning to serve your own ideal purpose.

I never said the way it is paid is voluntary, it is not. Those that decide to work as trash collectors is voluntary. There is no coercion to force people to be trash collectors. Button could be used as a means of﻿ exchange though it probably wouldn't used because it could be duplicated easily. Paychecks very well could exist under anarchism.

*ButtonsI suggest you actually read anarchist monetary thinkers like Benjamin Tucker, Murray Rothbard, and Lysander Spooner for starters. Even anarchists that preferred voluntary communism talked of notes as payment options. There would be no involuntary central banks like﻿ we have know.

you ever read about the history of the american socialist movement. the union wars. the class war fare. the spanish﻿ americans that fought on our side in the mexican american war. the french that openly traded with the indians and accidentally wiped out half of them on their way back home.

If you intend to use a check to pay someone you need some sort of currancy that is accepted by the majority, and if you have such a system that is a democracy. Paychecks couldnt exist under anarchism because in "Anarchism" there are no established laws or regulations. If you think﻿ there are you are manipulating the meaning.

dude I think its great that you're giving them the benefit of the doubt that they can actually understand "reason" but you and I both know that these fuckers are all one step away from being declared mentally challenged.

they're like scientologists. they've all been brain washed. some will eventually come out of it and thats where we come in. but yea. you gotta make it plain

you really are just totally and completely fucking pathetic. who the fuck are you to come comment on my shit like you're somebody and you got something to say when nobody has a fucking CLUE who you are yet Everyone knows who I am and where﻿ I stand! WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU!?

and I've got my shirt off because there's a fucking Heat wave going on here in the bay. white trash. do you even know what white trash is you worthless piece of shit? yea white trash. fucking Henry Rollins has appeared a million times in a million different places with his shirt off. Is he White trash you stupid fuck? "OH well no thats henry rollins. you're not henry rollins" Fucking poser. you got no BALLS dude.﻿ you got NONE! you might as well be a Kitten at the Pound. You're so god damn useles

a man that many anarchist seem to favor once said:"seems like the morei think i knowthe more i find i don'tevery answer opens up so many questions anarchy sounds good to meThen someone asks, "who'd fix the sewers?""would the rednecks just play kingof the﻿ neighborhood?"how many liberatorsreally want to be dictatorsevery theory has its holeswhen real life steps in"

All I have to say is you were bought off. Very cheaply I might add. It's gonna take a lot more than a 2 dollar bottle of piss and a bag of mid-grade to get me to make a whore out﻿ of my soul. Have fun with your "democracy" tonight though.

cheaply? the legalization of booze and marijuana﻿ is the tip of the fucking ice burg. you fight the law by making Better ones. that way everyone agrees to them. I'm Drunk and I can grasp this. Its fucking pathetic listening to people give excuse as to why they shouldn't have top FIGHT

Dude. Luxuries like living from cancer aren't something we can just vote ourselves. And even if we could, voting it would suck up sooooo many resources compared﻿ to a free market that we'd lose sooooo many other luxuries.

Understanding economics will bring us all the greater wealth and SOL. We just have to accept the fact that we have to work for it.

who says they're not? You? and you alone? should you Andy be the lone decider on whether we make a seriouslt well finded effort towards finding cures to ainceient deadly diesases? You andh you alone Andy? No one else should be able to decide whether or not cancer is as worthwhile fight? "well oh it should be Voluntary" yea Fuck voluntary god﻿ damn cowards are Afraid of using FORCE! well I'm not and fick you for being so god damn insensitive.

It's funny to see all﻿ the retarded motherfuckers on this comment board.Ad homs, infinite "what if" questions due to peoples' lack of creativity, the cheering on of oldhacks after he makes himself look foolish.(If you can't already see why, check punkoutlaw76's response to this video)

lol anarchistsMy favorite is "if you remove government, the people will govern﻿ themselves".

*raises hand*

Ummm.... so the people will form a new government? What's your plan then? Remove each government as it comes along? Like digging holes in sand? It refills itself and you dig again, getting nowhere? Come on.

No I wouldn't but there are people who do it even in our current society. They do it for the pay check which would not be banned in an anarchism. The state doesn't force people to collect trash. It is﻿ mostly done on a voluntary basis.

No it was about how do they intend to fend against foreign invaders and were﻿ do they think all the nuclear weapons in the USA are going to go. And they automatically shouting at me and calling me brainwashed.